When British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZeneca announced on Monday that its experimental coronavirus vaccine was an average of 70% effective, the world sighed in relief and stocks rallied. There was another vaccine with promising results.
But the lack of clarity surrounding many aspects of the AstraZeneca vaccine test data has raised some eyebrows in the scientific community, possibly due to the time being set for the vaccine to be authorized in Europe and the United States.
What happened to the trial: AstraZeneca said on Monday that those studying in the UK were given two different courses of the vaccine.
Drugmaker who developed the vaccine with Drug Oxford University, however, at the time, did not explain why they used two different dosing resins or why the size of one group was significantly smaller than the other.
In one group, 2,741 participants received a half-dose of the vaccine and then a full dose at least one month later. The group was 90% protected against Covid-19.
In the second group, 8,895 participants received the full dose, followed by another full dose at least one month later. This group was only 62% safe.
That’s why AstraZeneca says their vaccine is 70% effective on average.
The results raised eyebrows: Some scientists are questioning why the company will report the result of a bridge of two different trials, as it deviates from the standard report on clinical trials.
And in the days following that announcement, another point of confusion came out.
On Tuesday, AstraZeneca’s executive vice president, Maine Pangalos, who led the research and development at Joannecology, first explained to Reuters that the lab error was the same reason some volunteers received low doses – the dose proved to be 90% effective. “We have the reason for the half dose,” Pangalos said.
Read the full story:
.
